Literature DB >> 15532670

Development of a quick speech-in-noise test for measuring signal-to-noise ratio loss in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners.

Mead C Killion1, Patricia A Niquette, Gail I Gudmundsen, Lawrence J Revit, Shilpi Banerjee.   

Abstract

This paper describes a shortened and improved version of the Speech in Noise (SIN) Test (Etymotic Research, 1993). In the first two of four experiments, the level of a female talker relative to that of four-talker babble was adjusted sentence by sentence to produce 50% correct scores for normal-hearing subjects. In the second two experiments, those sentences-in-babble that produced either lack of equivalence or high across-subject variability in scores were discarded. These experiments produced 12 equivalent lists, each containing six sentences, with one sentence at each adjusted signal-to-noise ratio of 25, 20, 15, 10, 5, and 0 dB. Six additional lists were also made equivalent when the scores of particular pairs were averaged. The final lists comprise the "QuickSIN" test that measures the SNR a listener requires to understand 50% of key words in sentences in a background of babble. The standard deviation of single-list scores is 1.4 dB SNR for hearing-impaired subjects, based on test-retest data. A single QuickSIN list takes approximately one minute to administer and provides an estimate of SNR loss accurate to +/-2.7 dB at the 95% confidence level.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15532670     DOI: 10.1121/1.1784440

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am        ISSN: 0001-4966            Impact factor:   1.840


  189 in total

1.  Studies on bilateral cochlear implants at the University of Wisconsin's Binaural Hearing and Speech Laboratory.

Authors:  Ruth Y Litovsky; Matthew J Goupell; Shelly Godar; Tina Grieco-Calub; Gary L Jones; Soha N Garadat; Smita Agrawal; Alan Kan; Ann Todd; Christi Hess; Sara Misurelli
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 1.664

2.  Dispensing rates of four common hearing aid product features: associations with variations in practice among audiologists.

Authors:  Earl E Johnson; Todd A Ricketts
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2010-05-10

3.  Optimizing the perception of soft speech and speech in noise with the Advanced Bionics cochlear implant system.

Authors:  Laura K Holden; Ruth M Reeder; Jill B Firszt; Charles C Finley
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2011-01-28       Impact factor: 2.117

4.  Statistical bias in the assessment of binaural benefit relative to the better ear.

Authors:  Richard J M van Hoesel; Ruth Y Litovsky
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 5.  Objective neural indices of speech-in-noise perception.

Authors:  Samira Anderson; Nina Kraus
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2010-06

6.  Evaluation of hearing aid frequency response fittings in pediatric and young adult bimodal recipients.

Authors:  Lisa S Davidson; Jill B Firszt; Chris Brenner; Jamie H Cadieux
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 1.664

7.  Initial development of a temporal-envelope-preserving nonlinear hearing aid prescription using a genetic algorithm.

Authors:  Andrew T Sabin; Pamela E Souza
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2013-06

8.  Adaptation to frozen babble in spoken word recognition.

Authors:  Robert Albert Felty; Adam Buchwald; David B Pisoni
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Auditory Training: Evidence for Neural Plasticity in Older Adults.

Authors:  Samira Anderson; Nina Kraus
Journal:  Perspect Hear Hear Disord Res Res Diagn       Date:  2013-05

10.  Two ears and two (or more?) devices: a pediatric case study of bilateral profound hearing loss.

Authors:  Rosalie M Uchanski; Lisa S Davidson; Sharon Quadrizius; Ruth Reeder; Jamie Cadieux; Jerrica Kettel; Richard A Chole
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2009-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.